American Air to increase regional fleet

53 Ejets will allow AA to put a large RJ product in markets where the competition or flight length requires a cabin comparable to mainline aircraft.

Are there restrictions in the AA pilot contract on how far large RJ flights can operate?
.
The new IAH-JFK flight would make a whole lot more sense on an Ejet than a 738.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
From what I remember reading, the new contract limits the total number to 65% of the mainline narrowbody fleet count but removes most other limitations. I don't remember if the restriction on hub-hub flying was relaxed or eliminated. If AA can't maintain mainline service on its hub-hub routes, then where could it maintain mainline flying?
 
American Airlines and Republic Airways announced Thursday that Republic will begin operating 76-seat regional jets for American beginning in mid-2013 as American launches a significant expansion in its use of commuter partners.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/2013/01/republic-airways-to-operate-large-regional-jets-for-american-airlines.html/
 
From what I remember reading, the new contract limits the total number to 65% of the mainline narrowbody fleet count but removes most other limitations. I don't remember if the restriction on hub-hub flying was relaxed or eliminated. If AA can't maintain mainline service on its hub-hub routes, then where could it maintain mainline flying?
IAH-JFK is not a hub to hub route for AA... thus my question of how far AA could fly large RJs because some US airline pilot contracts do have distance restrictions even for hub to spoke flying..... the Ejet has tremendous potential to help AA grow its ORD and NYC operations using large RJs in markets where a mainline aircraft is to large.

I don't expect to see large RJs between any of AA's hubs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Sorry - when I edited my post, I forgot to re-type "there aren't any distance limits in the new contract." AA is free to schedule these up to their max range.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Embraer wins $4 billion American Eagle fleet deal; shares soar

SAO PAULO (Reuters) - Brazil's Embraer SA on Thursday clinched a deal worth up to $4 billion to supply larger regional jets for American Airlines' regional network, sending shares soaring on hopes for stable production this year.

Embraer and Republic Airways Holdings Inc signed a contract for 47 E-175 jets, with an option to acquire an additional 47 aircraft. The new aircraft will be operated by Republic under AMR Corp's American Eagle brand.

http://money.msn.com/business-news/article.aspx?feed=OBR&Date=20130124&ID=16031954&industry=IND_TRANSPORTATION&isub=
 
As I said earlier (and somehow earned a negative vote?) the decision on what airplane to buy was left with the supplier; in this case, Republic.

Hub to hub flying was prohibited in the old scope clause:
Beginning with the calendar quarter starting July 1, 2003, and for each calendar quarter thereafter, Commuter Air Carriers majority owned by AMR Corp. or by an Affiliate shall operate no more than 1% of the total combined scheduled block hours for such Commuter Carriers and the Company in nonstop scheduled service between any of the following airports, without the consent of the Association: DFW, ORD, MIA, JFK, SFO, LAX, LGA,
STL and SJU. If the number of departures scheduled by the Company at any other airport exceeds an average of 70 per day over a 12 month period, the Company shall meet with the Association to discuss adding such airportto this list.

No other Commuter Air Carrier operated under this Section 1.D. shall operate nonstop scheduled service between any of the following airports without the consent of the Association: DFW, ORD, MIA, JFK, SFO, LAX,
LGA, STL and SJU, except that if Executive Airlines ceases to be a Commuter Carrier that is majority owned by AMR Corp. or an Affiliate, then while Executive Airlines is such a Commuter Carrier, three daily nonstop
scheduled roundtrips between SJU and MIA shall not be subject to the restriction in this paragraph. BNA shall be added to the list of restricted airports whenever the Company schedules 40 or more daily departures
from BNA. If the number of departures scheduled by the Company at any other airport exceeds an average of 70 per day over a 12 month period, the Company shall meet with the Association to discuss adding such airport to
this list.

The TWU's scope clause previously capped the number of ASM's that could be operated by regionals in markets previously served by mainline. Since those ASMs were most valuable in markets where mainline couldn't be supported, it didn't leave open the option of putting a few seats into hub to hub markets.

There's an argument to be made that ORD-JFK could be better served with E-Jets, which DL is doing today. Likewise with LAX-SFO, and ORD-STL.
 
There's an argument to be made that ORD-JFK could be better served with E-Jets, which DL is doing today. Likewise with LAX-SFO, and ORD-STL.

True, but that sounds like the capacity reductions that high-cost airlines did before they filed for Ch 11 and cut their costs.

Bay area to Socal is the most heavily traveled corridor - of course dominated by WN. But even LAX-SFO gets 2,900 daily O&D passengers each way. Of course, thanks to VX, fares are incredibly low. I assume that AA's six daily 738s are as much for connecting traffic as they are for O&D.

Right now, ORD-STL gets six daily MD-80s plus a 757. Granted, there are probably peak times and off-peak times and a mix of large mainline and E-jets may be the optimal choice.

I'm sure you're right, but if I were a pilot, I'd be pissed off to hear about all those long-time mainline routes getting half-sized jets. Won't they say "We took huge concessions and were told the airline would grow by 20% in these key markets yet here we are giving away a lot of traffic. How the hell will this help us grow?"
 
except that markets like LAX-SFO (metro) are dominated by a couple carriers and for everyone else that needs to have some presence in the market - including AA and DL - the large RJs are a viable means to compete, even if means on non-mainline aircraft.

The whole notion of outsourcing mainline flying to regional carriers is highly sensitive to labor - as it should be. If AA's ability to use large RJs results in less overall mainline flying, then labor has lost. If AA redeploys capacity elsewhere on its system, then labor is at least a wash.

So far, only one network airline has managed to keep mainline flying constant while adding large RJs and decreasing 50 seat flying. The challenge that AA has in order for its labor to not feel that they have been used is to ensure that AA is growing mainline flying while shrinking total RJ flying. So far, we have not seen a plan to do that.

Someone can keep the "score card" but the reductions in the 50 seat and smaller fleet that AA one in BK appear to be less than the growth in large RJ flying which AA has or will be adding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Admittedly, I'm looking at geography more than demand on those examples...

My point really is that AA couldn't mix mainline and RJ's in those markets, between the scope clause and the lack of space for an F cabin. Being able to mix allows them to maintain frequencies in the off-peaks as you mention, and also pare back some mainline frequencies while still maintaining a mostly consistent schedule and product offering.

Having flown the RJ's in F a few times, I know it's not 100% comparable, but it sure beats the hell out of the alternative.
 
So far, only one network airline has managed to keep mainline flying constant while adding large RJs and decreasing 50 seat flying. The challenge that AA has in order for its labor to not feel that they have been used is to ensure that AA is growing mainline flying while shrinking total RJ flying. So far, we have not seen a plan to do that.

Someone can keep the "score card" but the reductions in the 50 seat and smaller fleet that AA one in BK appear to be less than the growth in large RJ flying which AA has or will be adding.

Hmmm, I guess all those 773's that arrived in the past 60 days count for nothing?

What about DFW-SEL, MIA-MAO, MIA-ASU, JFK-DUB, plus JFK-FCO and JFK-HND coming back?...


If the large RJ flying turns out to just be up-gauging existing RJ flying, or connecting odd dots that wouldn't ever see mainline, then labor really hasn't got much to piss and moan about. I'm sure they'll still piss & moan, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
As I said earlier (and somehow earned a negative vote?) the decision on what airplane to buy was left with the supplier; in this case, Republic.

Hub to hub flying was prohibited in the old scope clause:


The TWU's scope clause previously capped the number of ASM's that could be operated by regionals in markets previously served by mainline. Since those ASMs were most valuable in markets where mainline couldn't be supported, it didn't leave open the option of putting a few seats into hub to hub markets.

There's an argument to be made that ORD-JFK could be better served with E-Jets, which DL is doing today. Likewise with LAX-SFO, and ORD-STL.

The 175 is as comfortable as any mainline plane flying ..... passengers love it. From a passenger standpoint it's very acceptable. Could be used on almost any domestic route.
 
Hmmm, I guess all those 773's that arrived in the past 60 days count for nothing?

What about DFW-SEL, MIA-MAO, MIA-ASU, JFK-DUB, plus JFK-FCO and JFK-HND coming back?...


If the large RJ flying turns out to just be up-gauging existing RJ flying, or connecting odd dots that wouldn't ever see mainline, then labor really hasn't got much to piss and moan about. I'm sure they'll still piss & moan, though.
Just because new aircraft are ordered and put into service does not at all translate into profitable flying - new aircraft hasn't been a guarantee of profits for any airline before and nothing will change this time around. AA also has announced plans to aggressively retire many of its older aircraft, including a large chunk of its 767 fleet.

Sure, AA is going to try to regrow their network but they have lost a lot of ground... so any additions this year have to be weighed against what has been lost in the recent past.
You mention the 773s and int'l growth so let's start there.
Mr. 700 nicely lifted a post directly from a.net that contains US carrier int'l profitability and posted in the US forum under the profit thread.... you will see that AA has a significant yield gap in most of its int'l network - with the most notable example being the Pacific - but the Atlantic is far from exempt. Since you mention HND, you would do well to remember (or learn) that the latest DOT data shows that AA's average fares on its JFK-HND flight (not just the local but the entire segment) are about half of what its US carrier rival gets on their JFK-NRT flight and AA's JFK-HND average fare is the lowest US carrier transpac average fare I could find from the mainland. Further, every AA flight except DFW-NRT is competitive w/ DL and UA, each of which have higher average fares than AA. It isn't too difficult to realize that AA does not do well in competitive markets and DFW-ICN will be a new market to AA but an entrenched market to a competitor.
IN the Atlantic. AA has given up several routes in recent years so adding new routes there is not a guarantee of success.
And expectations that AA would have lower costs have not been born out in any financial statement so far or by any strategic plans that AA has released that are built around lowering costs beyond what they have obtained - and can be forecast where not finished.

On the domestic front, the apparent lack of requirements for AA to only add and not replace mainline flying carries a very high risk that in fact mainline flying will be lost to large RJs. It has happened at other carriers and the only way it won't happen at AA is if the network is significantly expanded.

We'd all like to believe that AA will use its newfound use of large RJs, including the passenger-likeable Ejets to grow into new profitable markets w/o shrinking mainline.
But history in the US airline industry as well as the current dynamics today argue against real growth as a result of new widebodies and large RJs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Nice deflection, but you didn't ask if the flying would be profitable. You said:

The challenge that AA has in order for its labor to not feel that they have been used is to ensure that AA is growing mainline flying while shrinking total RJ flying. So far, we have not seen a plan to do that.

Clearly, there's a plan. It's been public for weeks/months.

I know, you can't admit the obvious. Instead, you go off on how unprofitable all that flying will be.

Some things never change.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
well duh.... of course we weren't talking about whether the flying would be profitable. But since even AA keeps aircraft for 20 years, you can't expect that they are going to be able to add new aircraft and have them fly unprofitable flights for years and have a surviving company.

AA has a window in which it can spend a lot of money to buy new aircraft but it has to move very quickly to demonstrate profitability or they will be right back in BK again, merger or no merger.

All the new aircraft in the world won't change that AA's Atlantic and Pacific networks TODAY are producing revenue that is not as high as DL or UAs - and US doesn't either... meaning having DL and UA costs w/ lower revenues are not going to provide a profitable, sustainable company, regardless of the fleet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people